Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Are these football kids U or not?

36 replies

singthing · 04/02/2026 17:50

There is a small green space near me, with some lovely big old trees and nice benches to sit on - i.e. it was designed to be used by the public like a park.

In the past year, almost all the open space has been used as a football pitch seemingly every non-raining daylight moment. A couple of goals (domestic ones, not FA standard!) have been left there full time, and the grass has been completely churned up into a mudbath/dustbowl, depending on the weather. Other people can't sit on the benches because they are liable to get a ball to the head at any minute, and the issue with the grass too. Plus the games can get quite raucous, without anywhere to move away from the noise.

BUT it means that 4-6 kids (estimate ages around 8-10) are active and playing outside, not sat indoors on phones or watching tv or whatever. All the houses directly nearby, where the boys likely live, do have private gardens, albeit smaller than this "park". For completeness, there are bigger parks within walking distance (but out of sight from the houses), plus a forest and massive park a short drive away

WIBU? For the purposes of the poll:
YABU: The kids should be encouraged to play out, let them carry on.
YANBU: The kids should not have taken over the park, it is for everyone

OP posts:
Monvelo · 04/02/2026 18:08

I actually think football can be quite a problem, as it does dominate spaces, whether in schools or in situations like this. It excludes kids who don't play football and they often have nowhere else to go. It also tends to get quite competitive at quite a young age which excludes others from 'just having a go' or a more social kick about. I heard the national women's football team on the radio advocating for kick about spaces and girls football spaces in playgrounds to let these other groups in on the action. I also heard and read some interesting articles about park design to better suit the types of uses girls and women in particular would put it to, including considering things like surveillance, position of seating for chatting, and yes, design to contain football away from some areas. Not sure it answers your question but I thought it was interesting! Is there anything you could do to section an end off for not-football?

Original poster
singthing · 04/02/2026 18:07

Icepop79 · 04/02/2026 18:03

I do see your point and understand your frustration but I do fall into the “let the kids play” camp. It is too easy for kids to stay home on screens these days. If a small patch of grass near where they live is incentivising them to get out and do something active, I’m all for it.

Surely if there are other parks nearby, the other people who want to sit on the benches could walk to them..?

Edited

Also a very good point (other people using the other parks), but there are probably 15-20 houses directly surrounding it, with more in adjoining closes and side roads. All of them should have to go elsewhere?

(I am one road further back, but I go past it very frequently. Every time I do, I wonder what the non-football fans or parents of smaller kids or childfree think. So I did next best thing and put it to MN Jury!)

OP posts:
JustGiveMeReason · 04/02/2026 18:06

Why can't all these people who want to sit on benches
(which you can still do near kids playing football)

a) do that in the nearby park
b) do that in their own garden
c) do that when the kids are at school ?

YABVU

2026Y · 04/02/2026 18:05

singthing · 04/02/2026 17:57

To play devil's advocate, there isn't a sign saying no bonfires/paddling pools/airguns (etc) either, but you wouldn't reasonably expect to do any of those in a public facility.

Even if ball games are not specifically prohibited, what about the damage that has been caused, or that other people can realistically now not use a public place?

(I don't use it, I have a lovely back garden of my own, but there are plenty of people who might want to)

Show quote history

I see where you are coming from but I think it is generally accepted that kids play football in parks (which is why they put signs up to stop them sometimes). Presumably they have wrecked some of the grass but not all of it? ie. You could take a stroll around the outside even if walking through the middle would leave you with muddy shoes?

I agree that games should be played considerately and efforts made not to hit passers by etc. I can see why some people might be annoyed but kids don’t have many places to play and at least they aren’t hanging around getting up to no good.

Original poster
singthing · 04/02/2026 18:04

ToKittyornottoKitty · 04/02/2026 18:00

Forest and park a short drive away is irrelevant, kids can’t drive. Playing out near your home is what childhood is about.

But is damaging it and making it effectively unusable for others part of that? I did also say there are some other bigger parks a walk away too.

OP posts:
Icepop79 · 04/02/2026 18:03

I do see your point and understand your frustration but I do fall into the “let the kids play” camp. It is too easy for kids to stay home on screens these days. If a small patch of grass near where they live is incentivising them to get out and do something active, I’m all for it.

Surely if there are other parks nearby, the other people who want to sit on the benches could walk to them..?

Original poster
singthing · 04/02/2026 18:02

redskydelight · 04/02/2026 17:57

Children should be free to play football as they wish. They should not, however, play in such a way that their balls are likely to hit people sitting on benches, and if they are doing this, I'd suggest speaking to them/their parents.

Surely these children are at school for a large proportion of daylight moments, and in not that many years will be doing something else anyway.

Very fair point about school hours, but then many people are also at work then too.

The houses nearby tend to be starter homes and moving vans are not uncommon sights so I suspect the supply of fresh children won't run out any time soon. But this is definitely the first year in about 20 I have noticed such excessive use and damage. I used to see other children generally running round and playing there, sometimes with parents on benches, but not in a long while.

OP posts:
ToKittyornottoKitty · 04/02/2026 18:00

Forest and park a short drive away is irrelevant, kids can’t drive. Playing out near your home is what childhood is about.

redskydelight · 04/02/2026 17:57

Children should be free to play football as they wish. They should not, however, play in such a way that their balls are likely to hit people sitting on benches, and if they are doing this, I'd suggest speaking to them/their parents.

Surely these children are at school for a large proportion of daylight moments, and in not that many years will be doing something else anyway.

Original poster
singthing · 04/02/2026 17:57

2026Y · 04/02/2026 17:53

I don’t think you can necessarily expect the kids not to use it for football unless it’s explicitly prohibited. Presumably there’s no ‘No ball games’ sign or similar? If not, I think it’s fair game (pun intended)

To play devil's advocate, there isn't a sign saying no bonfires/paddling pools/airguns (etc) either, but you wouldn't reasonably expect to do any of those in a public facility.

Even if ball games are not specifically prohibited, what about the damage that has been caused, or that other people can realistically now not use a public place?

(I don't use it, I have a lovely back garden of my own, but there are plenty of people who might want to)

OP posts:
2026Y · 04/02/2026 17:53

I don’t think you can necessarily expect the kids not to use it for football unless it’s explicitly prohibited. Presumably there’s no ‘No ball games’ sign or similar? If not, I think it’s fair game (pun intended)

Swipe left for the next trending thread